Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
boo-x402-mcp

boo-x402-mcp

by lucle87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ENS name resolver

ens_resolve

Resolve ENS names to Ethereum addresses or reverse-resolve addresses to their ENS names.

Instructions

Resolve an ENS name to an address, or an address back to its ENS name.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.005 USDC per call (x402 on Base). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "ens_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesENS name (vitalik.eth) or address (0x...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the paid nature (up to $0.005 per call) which is useful, but lacks details on error handling, data freshness, or idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential payment info without unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the main functionality and cost, but could mention resolution failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds value by explaining the bidirectional resolution, enhancing the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: resolving ENS names to addresses and vice versa. It uses specific verbs and resource, and uniquely identifies the tool among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is implied. The description does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention any prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools